Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB337

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/30/23
• Refer: 6/30/23
• Report Pass: 2/7/24
• Refer: 2/7/24
• Engrossed: 2/13/24
• Refer: 2/19/24
• Failed: 4/15/24

Caption

Eliminating the 13-week limit on the garnishment of earnings of certain debtors.

Impact

The implications of AB337 are significant, particularly for individuals facing financial hardships. By removing the 13-week limitation, creditors could potentially garnish earnings for extended periods, which may further inhibit debtors' abilities to meet their basic living expenses. While the bill could facilitate quicker payment of debts, it raises concerns about the rights and protections available to those in debt, as prolonged garnishments could push some individuals into deeper financial distress or poverty. The balance between creditor rights and debtor protections is a major consideration in this legislation.

Summary

Assembly Bill 337 proposes to eliminate the existing 13-week limit on the garnishment of earnings for certain debtors in Wisconsin. Under the current legal framework, creditors can garnish a debtor's earnings for only 13 consecutive weeks before needing to file for an extension. This bill seeks to streamline the garnishment process, allowing creditors to pursue debt recovery without the current time constraint. Proponents argue that this change will enhance the efficiency of debt collection, ensuring that creditors can more effectively recover unsatisfied debts from their clients' earnings.

Contention

Notably, AB337 has faced criticism from consumer advocacy groups and some legislators who argue that it disproportionately impacts low-income individuals. They contend that unlimited garnishment durations may lead to situations where debtors struggle to cover essential expenses, as a significant portion of their income could be siphoned off continuously. Additionally, opponents of the bill fear it might – unintentionally – encourage predatory lending practices by allowing creditors to continuously pursue payments beyond what was previously manageable. Debates around this legislation highlight the broader conversation regarding economic justice and equitable debt recovery processes within the state.